
S^o 




"" 'iiii Hill iiiii mil 



017 187 261 3 



F 880 
.J78 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 






HON. S: JONES, OF GEORGIA, 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1846. ] 



WASHINGTON : 

BLAIR & RIVES, PRINTERS. 

1846. 



^ ■ 



3 



THE OREGON QUESTION 



On the Resolution for terminating the joint occu- 
pation of Oregon. 

Before proceeding, Mr. JONES, being informed 
by the Chairman that a motion to amend was not 
in order, sent the following resolution to the Clerk's 
table; which at his request was read by the Clerk: 

^^Resolved, That the people of the United States 
' have full reliance upon the discretion, the patriot- 
' ism, and the wisdom of the President, and those 
' advisers whom the Constitution has placed around 
' him; and feel willing, should negotiation be re- 
' newed, to submit the rights of the United States 
' to his care, management, and protection, with an 
' entire and abiding confidence that those rights, 
' the honor and best interests of the United States, 
' will be sustained, defended, and protected." 

It is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to vote for the 
resolution offered by the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, as proposed to be amended by the chair- 
man of that committee; and I shall offer the resolu- 
tion which has just been read as an additional sec- 
tion, by way of amendment. 

It is due both to myself and my constituents, as 
well as to this House, that my reasons should be 
given for this course, and I shall now proceed to 
do so. 

Unless oiir title to Oregon be good and sufficient, 
it would be improper to vote for that resolution. 
But, on the other hand, if we have the best title to 
that territory, but one course is left, and that is, to 
give the notice, fearless of consequences. 

It cannot be denied that Spain made the first dis- 
coveries on the western shore of this continent; 
and, by discovery, had the right of settlement. I 
am free to admit this right of settlement, growing 
out of discovery, could only endure for a reasona- 
ble time; and if it were not improved within a rea- 
sonable time, any other nation might, by actual 
settlement, (that is, reclaiming the wild lands by 
cultivation, building up cities, &c. ; and not by fish- 
ing and hunting, and erecting temporary huts for 
those purposes only,) deprive Spain of the right of 
discovery, and obtain a better title — that by .settle- 
ment. Has England or any other nation made any 
such settlements in any part of the Oregon terri- 
tory, (except in the valley of the Columbia, to 
which I will presently call your attention,) so as 
to deprive Spain of her right by discovery.' I 
think not. Can any gentleman on this floor point 
to the place where any nation has made any set- 
tlement which would deprive Spain of that right.' 



I know of none; for I do not call fishing and hunt- 
ing-huts, to protect seal-skins and peltry, such set- 
tlements. I refer particularly to that part of the 
territory above 49°; for I shall contend and show 
that the United States is the only nation that had 
interfered with this right of Spain, by discovery of 
the mouth of the Columbia, and the exploration 
and settlement of the valley of that great river of 
the west. Spain, then, having acquired the right 
of settlement by discovery, by the convention or 
treaty of 1819 transferred all her rights to the Uni- 
ted States. 

But we are told, that before the treaty of 1819 
she had parted with some of those rights, and trans- 
ferre(>them to England by the treaty of the Escurial, 
commonly called the Nootka sound convention. 
We will examine this presently. By the settle- 
ment of Canada on the Atlantic, France claimed 
the right by continuity to all the land to the Pacific 
ocean; and by the settlement of the English prov- 
inces south of Canada, England claimed by con- 
tinuity the right of territory also to the Pacific; and 
she asserted and imbodied this claim in the several 
charters to her American provinces, by granting, 
in express terms, the whole territory bounded on 
the west by the Pacific ocean. In the war com- 
monly called the " Old French War," which was 
closed by the treaty of 1763, Canada was captured 
by Great Britain, and France ceded to England all 
her right to that province east of the Mississippi, 
and England ceded to France all her right west of 
that river on tne Pacific, not only to that part of 
Canada which France claimed by continuity, but 
to all the territory which England claimed by con- 
tinuity as appended to her American provinces. 
I shall not stop here to inquire whether this right 
by continuity, claimed by England, be good or 
bad — that is not important; she ceded all her right 
to France, and she is now barred — as we would say 
in law estopped — from setting up any claim against 
France and those claiming under her. In the 
treaty of 1803, France ceded to the United States 
all her rights; and Spain alone remaining to con- 
test the rights acquii'ed by that treaty from France, 
in 1819 the rights of Spain were added to tho.se ac- 
quired from France, and both became vested in the 
United States. It may be urged that England had 
no title to any part of Oregon in 1763; that she 
claims by right of discovery and settlement since 
that time. That may be so. But, sir, having 
made the cession of all claims to France in 1763, 
she could not afterwards, in equity and justice, ac- 



quire any rights in contravention of the rights of 
France, and she has not, in point of fact, done so. 

Spain liaving first acquired the right by discov- 
ery, no subsequent right by discovery can be set 
up; and England never has acquired a right by ac- 
tual settlement — she never has made settlements 
north of 49°, and her settlements in the valley of 
the Columbia were posterior to those of the United 
States, (as I will presently show,) and could not, 
therefore, constitute any title. Being without title, 
either by discovery or settlement, to any part of 
Oregon, she invokes the aid of theNootka conven- 
tion; and this naturally brings us to the considera- 
tion of the stipulations of that convention, and the 
rights acquired by England under it. By the terms 
of that convention, the subjects of Great Britain 
v/ere authorized to land "on the coasts of those 
' seas, in places not already occupied, for the pur- 
' pose of carrying on their commerce loith the natives 
' of the country, or of making settlements there. '' It 
is a sound principle that " inclusio unius est c.vclu- 
sio altervus" — the insertion of certain and specified 
purposes excludes all others, and that the right 
given of trading with the natives does not give any 
claim to territory, jurisdiction, and sovereignty. 
The claim of England, then, under the Nootka con- 
vention, can only extend by the stipulations of the 
convention to the purposes of settlement and trade, 
and cannot extend to the right of soil, jurisdiction, 
and sovereignty. Having thus entered into this 
convention, and made their settlements for the pur- 
pose of trade with the natives, all the improve- 
ments or settlements made by English subjects 
since that time must be considered as made under 
that treaty, in accordance with and to carry out the 
purposes alleged in that treaty, and can add noth- 
ing to the rights of England. 

If a man by contract with me enters and remains 
in possession of my land for purposes specified in 
the contract, his possession and improvements can 
never ripen into a title; while if he had entered 
without permission and held adversely to my title, 
long continued possession and improvements might 
give him a good and indefeasible title. So, sir, 
England having made all her improvements for the 
purposes of hunting, fishing, and trading with the 
natives, under the Nootka convention, can never 
insist on them for any other purpose, and can never 
bring any aid to her claim under that convention, 
by the settlements that may have since been made. 
England, then, having no rightful claim to Oregon 
by discovery, can set up none by settlement under 
the Nootka convention, as all made under that con- 
vention v/ere for the purposes of settlement and 
trade with the natives. 

Again : the Nootka convention was entered 
into in 1790, and England and Spain went to war 
in 179G, and by war all treaties between the parties 
are abrogated. While this is not denied as a gen- 
eral principle by the English Minister, it is con- 
tended this treaty recognised or ceded to England 
certain rights of soil, jurisdiction and sovereignly; 
in other words, that property in the country was 
admitted to be in Great Britain. There is nothing 
in the stipulations of the treaty which will warrant 
such a conclusion. . England was authorized to 
land in all jilaces not already occupied, "for the pur- 
pose of carrying on commerce with the natives of 
the country, or of making settlements there;" and 
this agreement neither adds to nor diminishes the 



title which she had before that treaty. If she had 
a good title before that time, that treaty does not 
impair it; if she had a bad title, it does not 
strengthen it; and if she had no title, it does not 
give her one, other than " for the purpose of car- 
rying on commerce with the natives of the coun- 
try and of making settlements there." Therefore, 
according to international law, that treaty was 
abrogated by the war of 1796. This principle of 
international law cannot be denied by Great Brit- 
tain. She has contended for it against the United 
States. By the treaty of 1783, we had the right 
to fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, and to erect 
establishments for the curing of fish, &c. By the 
war of 1812, Great Britain contended that the stip- 
ulations of the treaty securing these rights were 
abrogated, and the plenipotentiaries of the United 
States, acting upon the American principle of "de- 
manding nothing that is wrong," admitted the 
principle, and submitted to less advantageous con- 
ditions than we had under the treaty of 1783. The 
treaty of the Escurial being then abrogated by the 
war of 1796, England was thrown back on the 
rights she possessed before the Nootka convention; 
and before that she had neither the right of discov- 
ery nor of settlement. 

The only nation which could interfere with the 
right of discovery belonging to Spain, is the Uni- 
ted States, by the discovery of the mouth of the 
Columbia river, the exploration of that river and its 
tributaries, and the settlement made by American 
citizens at its mouth. In 1789, Captain Gray first 
ascertained the existence of the river; in 1792 he 
entered the mouth and sailed some miles up the riv- 
er, trading with the natives; and in 1805-6, Lewis 
and Clarke explored it by order of Mr. Jefferson, 
then President of the United States. In 1810, a set- 
tlement (Astoria) was made by citizens of the Uni- 
ted States. So far as the valley of the Columbia 
was concerned, and indeed all the country drained 
by ihat river and its tributaries, according to the 
laws of nations, the United States alone had the 
right to contest the right of Spain acquired by 
discovery. It may be alleged that England has 
also made settlements in the valley of the Colum- 
bia. This will not be denied; but it confers no 
right. As no subsequent discovery can destroy the 
right of Spain by discovery, so no subsequent set- 
tlement can injure or destroy the right, by settle- 
ment, first acquired by the United States. And in 
further confirmation and completion of this right 
of the United States, her citizens have continually 
migrated and populated that country since that 
time, and in later years, not by scores and hun- 
dreds, but by thousands; and now more than eight- 
tenths were and are citizens of these United 
States. 

Without admitting that a sufficient title has not 
been demonstrated to the whole country, I am wil- 
ling to meet gentlemen, who suggest doubts as to 
our title, on their own ground; and I will ask if 
any man in this House is prepared to deny that 
we have the better title to the whole territory ? 

It has not been denied by the English minister 
that the title of the United States is equally valid 
with that of England. Lord Castlereagh "admit- 
ted, in the most ample extent, our right to be rein- 
stated," (in possession,) "and to be the party 

IN POSSESSION WHILE TREATING OF THE TITLE;" 

and Mr. Pakenham urges the division proposed 



5 



by Iiini on tlie grounds of necessity and conve- 
nience to the interest of* Great Britain. No otlier 
nation than the United States can ])ut up a decent 
claim to that country, uiih'ss Englaiul, in the lan- 
guage of my colleague [Mr. Toombs] has the right 
to be considered the residuary legatee from Adam, 
to all the earth to which no other nation can show 
the best possible and perfect title; and that she has 
the right, therefore, to order us, ex cathedra, to de- 
liver the possession to her. This imperative lan- 
guage had been used to her youthful colonics in 
1776. Those colonies had grown into manhood, 
not under her fostering care, but by her neglect; 
and when their strength was only three millions, 
showed that the Anglo-Saxon blood was improved 
by the spirit of liberty, and proved to the world that 
" Thrice i.s he anucd that hath his quarrel just ; 
Ami h(' but naked, though locked up in steel, 
Whose eonscience with injustice is corrupted." 

We then defied the gigantic power and countless 
wealth of Britain; and shall we now cower before 
her frowns, when our population numbers twenty 
millions? 

While our right to the country has not been 
denied, we have been told of the immense strength 
and power of England, of the vastness of her re- 
sources, of her war-steamers, her line-of-battle 
ships, and all that vast armament which catches 
every breeze and whitens every sea, and by v/hich 
she has assumed to call herself the mistress of the 
ocean. I can as little fear the power of England 
as this House did, at the last session, fear the im- 
potency of Mexico. You did not hesitate to an- 
nex Texas (even to the Rio Grande) to the Union, 
despite the remonstrances of Mexico; why now 
hesitate to give the notice, regardless of the growl- 
ing of the British lion ? For my part, I much 
prefer "to rouse the lion than to start a hare." 
I love a " foeman worthy of our steel, " and would 
sooner throw the gage of battle to proud, and 
haughty, and powerful England, than to bullying, 
and blustering, and impotent Mexico. 

The next question for our consideration is, the 
propriety of giving notice to England, and the con- 
sequences which may follow. And here I wish 
it distinctly understood that, having ascertained 
what the honor and best interests of our country 
demand and require, I am almost wholly regard- 
less of consequences. The people whom I have 
the honor to represent would spurn me from their 
confidence with contempt, were I to place in the 
scale the danger of a contest with England against 
the honor and interests of the United States. 

Let us, then, inquire whether the notice ought to 
be given. The President has told us that our pro- 
position has been rejected and withdrawn; and that 
this rejection, and the extraordinary and wholly 
inadmissible demands of the British Government, 
"afford satisfactory evidence that no compromise 
which the United States ought to accept can be 
effected." Can we oft'erto renew the negotiations 
under these circumstances ? And if we were to do 
so, can we expect any other answer than the one we 
have already received, and that, too, more haughtily 
expressed? Have we any reason to believe the 
minds of the English ministers have changed, and 
that they will now accept what they have before 
so promptly — not to say rudelj^ — rejected ? If any 
such exist, I have yet to be informed of them. 
Does the President expect they will accept any 



that we can offer, or that we can accept any they 
will offer? He has told us, in plain and distinct 
terms, they will not; and looking over the whole 
subject-matter, and discharging the high duties im- 
posed on him by the Constitution, he has, with- 
out hesitation, and without shrinking from the re- 
sponsibility of the office in which he has been 
placed by the people — the greatest in the world — 
advised us to direct him to give the notice. Some 
gentlemen are willing to leave it to him. No, sir. 
It properly belongs to us; and if, as some gentle- 
men fear, it will lead to war, the Constitution em- 
phatically requires us not to shrink from that re- 
sponsibility, but fearlessly to determine all ques- 
tions of peace and war. It would i)C a shameful 
abandpnment of duty to require the President to 
determine that question, that we might avoid the 
consequences, by telling our constituents, "They 
cannot say that we did it." Again, sir: Almost 
every gentleman who has addressed this House 
has expressed his conviction that our title is good 
and sufficient, since the able exposition of that 
title by our Secretaries of State; and scarcely a 
man can be found, throughout the length and 
breadth of this land, that is not entirely satisfied 
of the goodness of that title. How, then, can we 
refuse to carry out the judgment they have pro- 
nounced, by taking possession of our own proper- 
ty, so soon as a due regard to treaty stipulations 
will permit? A refusal to do so will involve us in 
this very vtnpleasant dilemma: either we are not 
sincere, and do not believe the title to be good, or 
we are afraid to assert our rights against the 
power of England; or, what is still worse, that 
we fear to take upon ourselves the responsibility. 
From this there is no escape. Let us, then, deter- 
mine for ourselves and our constituency, whether 
the notice shall be given, and direct the Presi- 
dent accordingly. 

We come now to inquire, not whether war will 
follow our resolution to give the notice, but wheth- 
er it will be a just and sufficient cause of war. 
Having satisfied our minds on this question, we 
have but one course to pursue — " to go where duty 
calls us;" and we shall be recreant to our trust if 
we fail to do so. By the convention of 1827, it is 
expressly provided that either party may termi- 
nate the joint occupancy by giving twelve months' 
notice, and it surely cannot be contended that it 
will be just cause of war to give notice in pur- 
suance of the stipulations of the treaty. It has 
been suggested that v/e should wait, and let Eng- 
land give the notice. Is it believed she will do so, 
or is there any man here or elsewhere prepared to 
say if she were to give the notice it would be justi- 
fiable cause of war ? I suppose not. Why, then, 
should we believe it would be a just and sufficient 
cause of war to her? However, we are told, al- 
though the notice of itself would not be sufficient 
cause of war, yet we are about to pass laws ex- 
tending civil and military protection over the terri- 
tory and inhabitants of Oregon. This is certainly 
true; and yet the passage of those laws can be no 
cause of war. England has passed such laws more 
than twenty years ago, and the United States have 
not declared war. The President and Congress 
have not deemed them sufficient cause for war, or 
they have tarnished the honor and disgraced the 
American name by basely and tamely submitting 
to such humiliation. 



6 



While it cannot and will not be seriously con- 
tended that cither or both these things will be suffi- 
cient cause of war, there are many who will insist 
that England will go to war; and almost in the 
same breath hold up, in terrorem, her large stand- 
ing army, her extensive navy, and her immense 
military and naval armaments in every quarter of 
the globe. She has need for them all where they 
are. She cannot withdraw her forces from India — 
from Ireland — from the island of Great Britain 
itself; she needs them all for the security of her 
India possessions and internal tranquillity at home; 
and she has no force to spare for the conquest of 
any part of the United States. And it had been 
said we were unprepared for war, and in a defence- 
less situation. This may be true. We are now 
much stronger than we have been in any war with 
England. In '76 she was little less powerful, in 
1812 she was more powerful, than she is now. 
Our population has swelled to more than twenty 
millions; in 1812 we could not number more than 
eight, and in 1776 we had only three millions. 
But 1 fear we may be in a more weak and defence- 
less situation. Then we had stout hearts and 
strong arms, and the battle-cry was, "Liberty or 
death." Now we have the whispers of fear even 
within these walls. I fear we may be less pre- 
pared, not in ships and in men and in all the mu- 
nitions of war, but that our hearts quail with fear 
at the prospect of a struggle with the mighty power 
of England. I love peace, and would go as far to 
preserve peace — honorable peace — as'any man on 
this floor. My constituents have a deep interest 
in the preservation of peace; but, sir, they would 
despise me, and spurn their representative with 
scorn who would tell them he had secured peace 
by the sacrifice of the rights and the honor of his 
country, and that he had prevented a war by yield- 
ing to "the haughty demands of Britain all she re- 
quired. I cannot and will not do it. 

We have been told of the wisdom and sagacity 
of the English ministers. It is upon this very 
wisdom and sagacity that my opinion is predica- 
ted, that they will not go to war without just and 
sufficient cause. They are wise and sagacious, 
and will, in the consideration of the question of 
peace or war, not confine themselves to Oregon, 
but take a survey of all the interests of Great Brit- 
ain most certainly to be affected by the decision of 
it. Sir Robert Peel has been emphatically styled 
the " balance-sheet minister," for the reason that 
he has a due regard to the commerce of England — 
the source of her wealth and power, the sinews 
of her strength; and he will ponder long ere he 
will consent to its entire destruction. I will not 
deny Great Britain can do us almost incalculable 
injury. But she is by no means invulnerable. 
She must suffer more in the conflict than Ave. Her 
victories, like those of Pyrrhus, will ruin her. The 
pressure and the calamities of war may bear us 
down, and retard for a season our onward march, 
but the recuperative energies of this young Repub- 
lic will soon restore her. Not so with England. 
Break the charm of her maritime power, and the 
mighty fabric of her extended empire may crum- 
ble into ruins. 

In the sagacity and wisdom of her ministers, we 
have an almost certain guaranty that war will not 
immediately follow the giving of notice, and that 
it will not be declared, if ever, till the expiration of 



twelve months. She must have two crops of cot- 
ton to keep her manufactories employed — the one 
now being carried to her, and the one which will 
be grown this year. I cannot believe that Great 
Britain will go to war but in the last extremity — 
not from fear, for she is a brave and fearless na- 
tion; she is too wise to sacrifice all her important 
interests, and rush into a war for the acquisition of 
a country to which she knows she has the weaker 
title; and in defence of that title, which can only 
be defended by her arms. She cannot and she does 
not expect to acquire any glory in a contest with 
the United States. 

Can any man believe those wise and sagacious 
statesmen are prepared to turn loose her thousands 
of operatives from the workshops and cotton-mills 
into the streets to starve, and add to her already 
bloated pauperism? Are they willing to destroy 
her manufacturers? to spread ruin and desolation 
among her whole commercial and shipping inter- 
ests? Commerce is the source and fountain of 
her wealth and her power; and this is well under- 
stood by all her leading men. What has England 
done, or rather, what has she not done, for tha ad- 
vancement and protection of her commerce? In 
all her laws, her negotiations, and her wars, she 
has looked with an eye single to the jn-omotion of 
that darling and cherished interest. In peace and 
in war she has never for a moment lost sight of it; 
and when her negotiators have failed, her admirals 
have used the more mighty argument — line-of-bat- 
tle ships. Without hesitation, she has violated 
her treaties and the neutrality of other nations in 
the capture of the Danish fleet at Copenhagen; she 
imprinted a deep stain on her national honor by 
chaining Napoleon, who threw himself into her 
arms for protection, to the rock of St. Helena; and a 
foul blot on her escutcheon, in forcing her opium 
upon the imbecile Chinese at the cannon's mouth. 
In barbaric ages, Tamerlane confined and ex- 
hibited the captured Bajazet in an iron cage. In 
more civilized times, f'rancis the First, who lost 
all but his honor at the battle of Pavia, was gen- 
erously liberated by Charles the Fifth; but Chris- 
tian, philanthropic England, deemed herself excus- 
able, for the advancemeut of commerce, to follow 
the barbaric rather than the civilized example. 

"Will they be satisfied to lose the carrying trade 
of the world ? In all her wars heretofore, England 
has always been able to obtain soldiers from the 
Continent, and to retain the carrying trade, for her 
contests have generally been with the continental 
nations; and she has always been able to involve 
some of them in the same contest who wovild fur- 
nish the men, while her commerce enabled her to 
furnish the money. Now, she must depend on 
her own men, and lose that trade which poured mil- 
lions into her treasury with which to subsidize the 
soldiers of other nations. A war with the United 
States will deprive her of that trade; and though 
her sails may catch every breeze, and whiten every 
sea, they cannot escape the American cruisers. 
They may fly to the uttermost bounds of the sea, 
and even there the broad stripes and bright stars 
will follow them. The high price of insurance 
will force that trade into neutrals. Time was 
when the loss of that trade v/ould endure only with 
the war. Now, when the commercial marine of 
the continent has increased, through a long peace, 
that trade once lost has departed forever 



Again, sir; arc thoy prepared for an increase of 
her public debt? Will liercapiU\lists and bankers 
agree to it? England wont out of the war with 
France with a debt of c^'800,00(),000, and thirty 
years of peace has not reduced that enormous 
debt more than cf50,l)()(),()(J0; although every ne- 
cessary of life — even the air the y breathe — lias been 
taxed 10 exhaustion; and the haughty aristocracy 
has been compelled to disgorge its overgrown 
wealth for the support of the country. Will they 
consent to lend their money, and swell to excess 
an already unwieldy debt on the credit of a Gov- 
ernment which can scarcely pay the interest of 
that already accumulated? Or will the people of 
England, or can they, bear any increase of their 
burdens ? 

And where is Ireland, and what is her situation ? 
Can the British ministers veil tiieir eyes to it, 
when they know she waits but the occasion of 
war to enforce her demands? Are they prepared 
for an unconditional repetd of the Union, and to 
grant to Ireland her own parliament, with an equal 
participation in the blessings of her Government? 
Or do they believe, without these concessions, 
Ireland will assist in the war, or even remain quiet, 
and permit her to withdraw her troops and send 
them to this country ? No, sir : depend upon it, 
the first gun discharged against an American ship, 
an American battery, or an American fort, will be 
the signal for the Irish nation to rise, and, with the 
voice of authority which cannot be disobeyed, 
demand a redress of all their grievances. 

And will Canada be safe ? Rely upon it, the war 
will be fought in Canada. Are the inhabitants of 
Upper Canada content with the English rule ? Will 
they not readily join our standard, and strike for 
liberty, when they know we are able to protect 
them ? Will Lower Canada linger behind her sis- 
ter? Now, sir, I wish not to be misunderstood. 
I do not desire to conquer Canada. I would not 
if I could. I hope not to live to see the day when 
the Government of the United States shall be ex- 
tended by conquest. But I would extend to them 
the blessings of our free institutions, and invite 
them to partake, and my word for it, another an- 
nexation would take place despite the diplomacy 
and the cannon of England. All these things are 
well known to England, and she fears them too. 
She well knows she must seal her own destruction 
by a war with the United States, which would 
only retard and not materially injure our pros- 
perity. 

But if, under all these circumstances, regardless 
of all the consequences whicli must follow in the 
train of war, the English ministers determine to 
resort to the ultima ratio regwn — the artillery and 
the bayonet — we shall have the proud consolation 
of knowing that we have discharged our duty; 
that we have only demanded our rights; that we 
have adhered to the maxim of the fearless, lion- 
hearted Jackson, " to demand nothing that is 
wrong, and to yield nothing that is our right;" 
and that all the blood which may be sjiilled in this 
dire contest must lie on the skirts of England. 

Mr. Chairman, there is one memorable fact in 
the history of our Government, which must fill the 



heart of every American with proud exultation — ■ 
that we have never committed an act of injustice 
and oppression upon other nations. While we 
have been compelled to demand indemnity for 
Spoliations upon our commerce and our citizens 
in manifold instances, in no one case has it ever 
been asked for of us. 

We need not fear that war will come; but if it 
does, we are ready for the contest. Let but the 
clarion of war be sounded, and notwithstanding the 
differences of opinion which may bo here express- 
ed, there will be but one opinion over thi.s wide- 
s|)read country. From the lakes to the Rio dtl 
J^orte, there will be but one voice and one heart, 
echoing the cry " Ah, 'tis sweet, 'tis sweet to die 
for our country" — that sentiment, immortalized by 
the dying tongue of the noiile Warren, the hero of 
Bunker Hill, the first sacrifice on the altar of his 
country. 

Sir, I have heard with feelings of mortification 
and regret, the declaration, on this floor, that if 
we pass this resolution to give notice, England is 
obliged to declare war — that her honor demands it. 
This reminds me of that officious friendship which 
is sometimes offered, and induces some persons, 
upon a slight controversy, to believe that they are 
obliged to fight. My hope and consolation are, 
that Sir Robert Peel will not hear of them, or 
hearing will not heed them. If he were to act 
from those suggestions, or be influenced by those 
opinions, then he must resort to arms; while, if 
left to the promptings of his own sagacity, and 
the interests of England, he will not disturb the 
general peace. Whether peace or war ensue, we 
have the proud satisfaction of knowing we have 
done our duty, and used every means to secure an 
honorable peace. But if the gates of Janus must 
be thrown open, and war must come, the hearts 
of the American people are ready for the conflict. 
Raise " high the banner of our pride;" fling to 
the winds the broad stripes and bright stars, the 
glorious banner of our country; and every heart 
will respond to the poet — 

" Oh, if tliera be witliin this earthly sphere, 
A boon, an nfferin?, Heaven holds dear, 
'Tis the histhbation Liberty draws 
From the heart that bleeds and breaks in her cause." 

Yes, sir; the tree of liberty was planted in Amer- 
ica in the Revolution; it was watered by the tears 
and nourished by the blood of our fathers; it has 
grown to be a great tree, and the branches thereof 
will cover this whole continent. I will not say the 
sons of the sunny South — I will not make the in- 
vidious distinction; but I will say the North and 
the South, the East and the West — the sons of the 
immortal heroes of the Revolution — will rally 
under its shadovv, and defend the standard of our 
country with their lives, or, clinging to its branch- 
es, they will perish in its ruins. 

Sir, I have done; and to Him who holds the des- 
tinies of nations in the hollow of His hand — who 
gives not the race to the swift, nor the battle to the 
strong — with a firm reliance on His divine protec- 
tion, most willingly do I commit the fate of our 
beloved coun'ry. 



/■ 



017 187 261 3 4 



Crtnemrvatian Resources 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 187 261 3 



